bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1990), pp. 3–4
Having assumed the President’s Desk as this issue was going to print, I thought I would share with you an excerpt from a long and thoughtful letter PAFSO recently received from one of our members.
“Just off U.S. 19A, between Tarpon Springs and Clearwater, Florida, lies a restaurant best known for its trademark slogan: Warm beer, lousy food.” Should you ever be in the area, I highly recommend a stop at Jerry’s on the Beach, if only to understand your chosen career better, because it seems to me that Jerry’s embodies the same sort of perverse attractiveness that draws people to the Foreign Service. For surely, if there ever was a career which offered the equivalent of a menu consisting of warm beer & lousy food, it is the Foreign Service today.
Jerry’s, which serves that Florida standard, deep fried nearly everything, almost lives up to its billing. They perhaps disappoint the diner by actually serving beer that is cold. But since it is only American beer, one can’t be too let down. Nonetheless, the place seems to be busy, particularly on Saturday nights when the jaded 30-somethings saunter in for something different. And I have to believe that this same mulish attraction to something different is what attracts us to Foreign Service today, for I can’t think of any other reason for accepting the deteriorating conditions of life overseas.
As I write this, our colleagues are stuck in Kuwait and Iraq, wondering if the Iraqi troops will soon be cutting off the water and electricity, and if they will ever get out of the place alive. The Government is not capable of doing anything for them in the way of security or offsetting the terrible pressure on their families, but states instead that as a matter of principle they will keep the Kuwait City embassy open. The good that will come of this is that the public, politicians and Treasury Board officials will see that Foreign Service officers provide an important service to Canadians, and often do so in far from ideal conditions.
And what do we get for doing this? Well, we get to try to live most of our lives on one income, when something like 90% of equivalent families in Ottawa-Hull have two incomes. We get to have continued attacks on our standard of living overseas through ridiculously low Post Indexes. The latest blow, through some sort of warp-think on the part of the property management people, is that single officers now pay twice as much Last February, I participated in the Toronto recruiting team for new FSs. In two weeks, we interviewed 55 people, perhaps 6 of whom we felt were of FS quality. Where were all the high flyers, the leaders, the top scholars? They were, rightly, looking for careers elsewhere where they had a chance of decent salaries, a chance for promotion before they were crippled with terminal arthritis, and a life for their spouses. As my recruiting team wrote to Peter Walker, ADM Personnel, “No longer are poor salaries, slow promotions, and lack of career opportunities for spouses enough to attract good people to the Foreign Service.
In the past, management has responded to these sorts of complaints by saying that there was obviously no problem because no one was quitting. However, I note that when the bronze handshake was recently offered to encourage people to leave the Department early, it was vastly over-subscribed. In fact, some 150 people have asked for the bronze handshake, even though the Department only wants to give it to about 50. In addition, I note that many of our colleagues have resisted all attempts to send them out on posting. When asked why, the answer is that they see no point in screwing up their lives and the lives of their spouses and families. It is therefore a good thing that the Corporate Review cut a number of overseas jobs, or there would be a severe shortage of people to fill them. That shortage, I predict, will hit in another two years.
Perhaps you have noticed that there seem to be two sorts of Foreign Service Officers today. There are those who have been back in Ottawa for several years, (or have never left Ottawa for that matter), and don’t intend to leave unless they are forced, or get a posting with guaranteed employment for their spouse. Then there are the others, perhaps an equally large group, who never want to come back to Ottawa. This second group has adapted itself well to the Foreign Service life, but has become so dependent on the FS premiums that they can’t afford to come home. They have systems in place that work fine overseas, but will be totally broke upon return to Ottawa. For the most part, these people are the veterans, who have 15 to 25 years in, can’t quit even if they wanted to because of pension plans, and are going to make the best of what they now have. Hopefully, they invested wisely a few years ago in a condo on the Costa del Sol and never have to survive a one-salary existence during an Ottawa winter:
Into this miasma, the Corporate Review suggests recruiting women and minority group EX’s to offset the imbalance of representation of these groups. But as PAFSO members have pointed out to Senior management during Corporate Review meetings, we have this imbalance because of the systemic problems in the Foreign Service, such as the problem of spousal employment. So if you want to attract new people, be they women EXs (which I do not believe for a minute is necessary — there are lots of talented women within the FS) or entry level recruits, we had better fix the system fast, because it sure as hell is broke. And Corporate Review did little more than pay lip service to these problems without offering substantive solutions. So what do we do to fix this system that is rapidly collapsing around our ears? I would like to suggest a few remedies to PAFSO:
• Spousal employment, both at home and abroad needs real attention. The proposal contained in the Corporate Review does not go nearly far enough. For example, at least 50% of LES jobs at posts could be reserved for spouses. HOMs should be judged on how they find jobs for spouses, and those who fail should not be given further senior management opportunities. All term and contract positions at HQ should first be given to eligible FS spouses, to help them re-enter the Canadian workplace. Unemployment insurance should be paid to spouses who go on posting and who return to Canada.
• Overseas Housing needs to be allocated on the basis of rent share, not just on family size. Representational responsibilities should influence the sort of housing assigned, as it still counts to entertain at home. As in Ottawa, those that pay the most should get the most – it is ridiculous for someone to be paying twice the rent as someone else for the same apartment. Either give better housing for more money, or charge the same for the equivalent apartment, as is done everywhere else in the world. And why should rent share calculations now stop at the bottom of the EX-1 salary level? A senior FS-2 pays about the same rent as an EX-4!
• Foreign Service Premiums should not stop when the employee returns home, just when he needs it the most. A system should be put in place that rewards foreign service in general, based on the number of years abroad as it does now, throughout the entire Foreign Service career.
• Salaries should do more than just protect our members from inflation, and should reflect the problems of the Foreign Service life. When J.C. Pelletier received his political appointment to Kinshasa earlier this year, the Government managed to find a way to pay him $90,000 to do the job of an FS-2. If that is what it takes to get someone from the private sector to do this job on a one-time basis, then we who spend a portion of our careers in such places should expect at least as much.
• The pension plan should be adjusted so that pension contributions of both the employee and employer, plus interest at RSP rates, is fully portable after five years. This would enable people to leave the Foreign Service and start new careers. In addition, spouses of FS officers should receive all of their pension, rather than the half that they are now entitled to when the officer dies, in recognition of the fact that they have given up opportunities to pursue their own careers.”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1990), pp. 3–4. Read the rest of this issue →
